Re: [imapext] [ietf-smtp] Fwd: Request to form a new WG: JMAP
Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com> Thu, 10 November 2016 04:13 UTC
Return-Path: <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
X-Original-To: imapext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: imapext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C05901288B8; Wed, 9 Nov 2016 20:13:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.399
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FoMA3yvMkcHp; Wed, 9 Nov 2016 20:13:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [68.183.62.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AD627127071; Wed, 9 Nov 2016 20:13:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01Q74JD3OR9C014IYX@mauve.mrochek.com>; Wed, 9 Nov 2016 20:08:42 -0800 (PST)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01Q74BD9SBVK00Z4TS@mauve.mrochek.com>; Wed, 09 Nov 2016 20:08:37 -0800 (PST)
Message-id: <01Q74JCZZYFG00Z4TS@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2016 19:57:23 -0800
From: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Wed, 09 Nov 2016 19:03:36 +0000" <b85870ed-86e0-0f97-fece-476399124e81@isode.com>
References: <1478539079.1706686.780110457.75B1F9CF@webmail.messagingengine.com> <a786d82d-7134-c7bc-24ef-5dfb56e7bbac@isode.com> <01Q7166TP70G011H9Q@mauve.mrochek.com> <b85870ed-86e0-0f97-fece-476399124e81@isode.com>
To: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/imapext/nvhi9x_gmtZrVRF3_bci1I9CydQ>
Cc: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>, ietf-smtp@ietf.org, "'imapext@ietf.org'" <imapext@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [imapext] [ietf-smtp] Fwd: Request to form a new WG: JMAP
X-BeenThere: imapext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of IMAP extensions <imapext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/imapext>, <mailto:imapext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/imapext/>
List-Post: <mailto:imapext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:imapext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imapext>, <mailto:imapext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 04:13:52 -0000
> Hi Ned, > If this work goes forward, there is definitely some wordsmithing to do > to address your comments. Quick answers to some of them below: Sounds good. > On 07/11/2016 18:05, Ned Freed wrote: > > Without getting into whether or not this is in general a good idea, I > > want to > > note that the proposal as written is self-contradictory, making it very > > difficult to evaluate. In particular: > > > >> Name: JSON Mail Access Protocol > >> Acronym: jmap > >> Area: Applications and Real-Time Area (art) > > > >> Charter for Working Group > > > >> Many companies and projects are developing their own JSON based > >> representations of email which are proprietary, non-standard, and > >> incompatible with each other. These protocols are proliferating due > >> to existing standards being insufficient or poorly suited to the > >> environments they are operating in, particularly mobile and webmail. > > > > "Representation of email" would seem to imply that we're talking about > > a new > > message format. > No, the email format is unchanged. I note in passing that this is actually a departure from some of the existing APIs, where messages are mapped into and out of JSON at least some of the time. > > Whoops! Now we're talking we're limiting ourselves to synchronization of > > the client with the server. > Yes, basically the IMAP side of things. > > Which would seem to exclude SUBMIT, unless > > you're doing SUBMIT with magic folders > Most likely, yes. And as I indicated previously, that's a problem, because magic folder are a poor means of doing message submission, mostly because of their lousy error handling. I'll also note that none of the existing APIs I know of use magic folders. For example, the Gmail API has two methods to send mail - message.send and drafts.send, which return the error information you need. And the Outlook API is very similar except that HTTP POST is used But this really isn't the time to get into details. My point here is that if you're going to do message submission, you need to get it right - something essentially none of the current specifications do - and that's going to require an expansion of the model being proposed here. Ned
- [imapext] Fwd: Request to form a new WG: JMAP Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [imapext] [ietf-smtp] Fwd: Request to form a … John C Klensin
- Re: [imapext] [ietf-smtp] Fwd: Request to form a … Ned Freed
- Re: [imapext] [ietf-smtp] Fwd: Request to form a … John C Klensin
- Re: [imapext] Fwd: Request to form a new WG: JMAP Arnt Gulbrandsen
- Re: [imapext] [ietf-smtp] Fwd: Request to form a … Adrien de Croy
- Re: [imapext] Request to form a new WG: JMAP Julien ÉLIE
- Re: [imapext] [ietf-smtp] Fwd: Request to form a … Doug Royer
- Re: [imapext] [ietf-smtp] Fwd: Request to form a … Ned Freed
- Re: [imapext] [ietf-smtp] Fwd: Request to form a … John C Klensin
- Re: [imapext] [ietf-smtp] Fwd: Request to form a … Arnt Gulbrandsen
- Re: [imapext] [ietf-smtp] Fwd: Request to form a … Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [imapext] [ietf-smtp] Fwd: Request to form a … Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [imapext] [ietf-smtp] Fwd: Request to form a … Doug Royer
- Re: [imapext] [ietf-smtp] Fwd: Request to form a … Ned Freed
- Re: [imapext] [ietf-smtp] Fwd: Request to form a … John C Klensin
- Re: [imapext] [ietf-smtp] Fwd: Request to form a … Neil Jenkins
- Re: [imapext] [ietf-smtp] Fwd: Request to form a … Tony Finch
- Re: [imapext] [ietf-smtp] Fwd: Request to form a … Ned Freed
- Re: [imapext] [ietf-smtp] Fwd: Request to form a … Ned Freed
- Re: [imapext] [ietf-smtp] Fwd: Request to form a … Ted Lemon
- Re: [imapext] [ietf-smtp] Fwd: Request to form a … Doug Royer
- Re: [imapext] [ietf-smtp] Fwd: Request to form a … Ted Lemon
- Re: [imapext] [ietf-smtp] Fwd: Request to form a … Bron Gondwana
- Re: [imapext] [ietf-smtp] Fwd: Request to form a … Ned Freed
- Re: [imapext] [ietf-smtp] Fwd: Request to form a … Ted Lemon
- [imapext] offline mode, was Re: [ietf-smtp] Fwd: … Tony Finch
- Re: [imapext] [ietf-smtp] Fwd: Request to form a … Doug Royer
- Re: [imapext] [ietf-smtp] Fwd: Request to form a … Bron Gondwana
- [imapext] Further discussions of JMAP Alexey Melnikov
- [imapext] I moved to jmap@ietf.org Doug Royer
- Re: [imapext] [ietf-smtp] Request to form a new W… Jacob Palme
- Re: [imapext] offline mode, was Re: [ietf-smtp] F… Brandon Long